Just screwing around, I decided to try to convert some flaked corn using mastication. Not much fun. I chewed about 1/2 cup, a half tbs at a time. This blob was diluted slightly to make a thick paste. So far, after a half hour, it still shows positive for starch. It is at room temperature. I am thinking about warming it a bit in a hot water bath.

Lack of time or effort never seemed to stop the natives that chew corn to make chicha, but I agree this seems like a very time-consuming and labor-intensive process. Isn't it Homer Simpson who says he'd kill everyone in the room for a drop of sweet beer?

Does it need to all be converted? I've never had Chicha, but from everything I've read/heard I would guess a little left over starch wouldn't be too big a deal. Does the paste taste sweet? Anybody else on here like to eat paste?

I just batch sparged (Denny is proud, I am sure) the chewed corn and got about 8 oz of 1.025 wort that is now being boiled with about a tbs of Golding hops. It never gave a negative starch test. I will have to try harder the next time. I am going to ferment it in a mason jar with a package of Coopers.

This quote certainly has to be ranked as one of the all-time best, most useless quotes on the board. Thanks for the laugh!

Here's my favorite from Mel Brooks' Blazzing Saddles (1974):

quote:

[while Mongo is beating the hell out of a bar full of toughs, Bart walks in, dressed as a messenger boy and carrying a box]Bart: Candygram for Mongo! Candygram for Mongo! Mongo: Me Mongo. Bart: Sign, please. [Mongo grabs the paper and makes some rough scratches on it]Bart: Thank you. [He gives Mongo the box and walks out of the bar, putting his fingers in his ears]Mongo: Mongo like candy. [he opens the box - BOOM!]

No soap radio (often No soap, radio, No Soap Radio, sometimes "No soap... radio?", "No soap. Radio!") is the traditional punchline for a type of prank joke which has a body not directly related to the punchline itself, but is made as if to be humorous by participants in a prank. The first known reference to this form of anti-humor was in 1966. [1]

The joke is notable for its use as a basic sociological and psychological experiment, specifically relating to mob mentality and the pressure to conform. Contents [hide]

The prank itself requires one joke teller, at least two co-conspirators, and a victim. The joke teller will catch the attention of the victim and announce his intention of telling a joke, perhaps stating that it would be particularly of the victim's taste. The joke teller will then proceed to tell the joke, which can be of two main types.

* A short joke, often thought of beforehand. * A very long joke, usually improvised and told in a rambling fashion.

The punchline of the joke will have been told to the co-conspirators beforehand – traditionally the phrase, "No soap radio." After the joke teller says the punchline, the co-conspirators will immediately laugh uproariously, treating the joke as if it were, in fact, funny.

In effect, the joke is not to be found in the content itself, but rather in how the victim reacts. The joke is not in "No soap radio." The joke is on you.

The purpose of the prank is to make the one victim of the joke's telling respond with one of two favorable (to the joke tellers) results:

* Negative understanding is expressing confusion about what the joke means and feeling left out. In the best case, the victim may inquire about the joke multiple times, ask for a retelling, perhaps over an extended period (sometimes days or a week, rarely longer). The victim may switch to false understanding after getting (facetious) derision expressed from the conspirators. Normally after some time of negative understanding, the prank is revealed in full to the victim. * False understanding is acting as if the joke is humorous when in fact the victim doesn't understand the joke at all. This usually results in savage derision and immediate abandonment of pretense by the conspirators, due to the deception involved.

Additionally, there are various unfavorable outcomes:

* The victim may have heard of the "No soap radio" prank before, or figure out what is going on, and understand that this is a prank rather than a real joke. This may result in a few laughs on the part of the conspirators and victim anyway, and is more of a neutral outcome than anything else. * The victim may just ignore the joke and walk away or change the subject. The victim in this case doesn't understand the joke and doesn't care. This is typically the worst outcome. * The victim may dismiss the joke as one that purposely doesn't make sense without fathoming the prank behind it. This may be used advantageously in a method similar to that used in negative understanding, but is much more difficult. * The victim may think the joke is funny for an unintended reason. This is rare, however, and usually results from a poor telling of the joke.

It should be noted that the prank is somewhat difficult to pull off convincingly, as an outburst of laughter (being a natural and often spontaneous occurance) is difficult to fake, even for experienced actors. That's why a simple chuckle possibly accomponied with a statement suggesting understanding of the joke (i.e., "Haha, I get it, that's hilarious!") may be preferable over uproarious laughter, unless the players can convincingly stage such a response. [edit]

Psychology

No soap radio is a classic example of anti-humor. Of the outcomes listed, false understanding is the most desirable one, to the tellers of the joke. This scenario is a demonstration of groupthink and peer pressure, the need to conform to one's peers. Despite the entire thing being utter nonsense with no hidden meaning, nothing to get, no punchline, nothing special, the key is the conspirators laughing. One can judge a person this way, as being more individualistic or more eager to please their friends, seeing whether or not they exhibit false understanding. The results have typically shown that in practice: when negative understanding results it is more likely from a more independent thinking person, and false understanding is more common for the more group-minded.

No soap radio is known to have been used frequently in elementary, middle, and high school at various points in history. Although it has not been documented, it is understandable that the joke would thrive in settings so rich in peer pressure. [edit]

Examples and popular culture

Since the short variety of joke is usually thought of beforehand, there are a few commonly used ones. For some reason, they often involve animals in bathtubs.

* Two polar bears are sitting in a bathtub. The first one says, "Pass the soap." The second one says, "No soap, radio!" * A bull and a bear are taking a bath together. The bull says, "Could you please pass the soap?" The bear replies, "No soap, radio!" * Three penguins are sitting in a bathtub, and the first one turns to the one on the right, and says "Pass me the soap", and the other one says "No soap, radio!" * A foreign man is flying in an airplane. He points out the window at the unfamiliar countryside below and exclaims, "No soap... radio?" * A penguin and a polar bear are sitting on an iceberg. The penguin yells, "Radio!" They both jump in the water. * A king and an elephant were sitting in a bathtub. The king said, "pass the soap" and the elephant said, "No soap, radio!"

The long variety of joke is normally made up on the spot, but may be reused after that. There have at times been a few classic archetypes. One famous long form starts with, "Alright, so these two baseball players are sitting in the stadium for a hockey game," and then goes on, made up as one goes along.

Over the years the joke has become widely known and entered popular culture in other forms, including a radio labeled "No Soap, Radio!" on an episode of The Simpsons, and a band with the name appearing at the Crazy Horse on The Sopranos. It has been used as the name for rock bands, as well as a short-lived TV sketch comedy show (à la Monty Python's Flying Circus) starring Steve Guttenberg that aired on ABC in the spring of 1982. [2] [edit]

Geez, I didn't think I picked a fight. I kind of liked the ignorant slut title (I actually remember SNL!). And you do know I'm a member of the prestigious rcb FA club, don't you? In re-reading my previous post, and your response to it... Ouch!

Beer related: I have some interesting data regarding underpitching, as soon as the fermentation I have underway gets a few more days under its belt. That'll be a new thread. Ken

Dan, maybe you should get the Cincy brew club to all help with the next batch. You would get alot more than with just one person. You could enter it next year in the AHA comp as experimental! Thank God I am not a beer judge.

It's called chicha. Specifically, you're trying to make muko. I've got some photocopied info on it from various archeological sources, but it's all currently boxed up, as we are moving. Here's what I remember: you can't just chew it and expect the starches to convert immediately. After the addition of saliva, the cakes are generally left to bake in the hot sun - think of the saliva as enzymes, and the heat from the sun as a mash. It takes some time - I don't know how long.

Check the following link for actual information on how to make the stuff. The Chicha Page.

For what it's worth, this thread reads like one of those "Bock beer is made from the bottom of the barrel" or "you can go blind from hombrewing" threads.... It does help to do a little reading... and no, "gorditas" are not Mexican food, and tacos aren't Spanish food...

Thank you, drive through, and the chutney is one aisle over, on your left.